Is a Man's Reputation His Property?

[jj-]

As does gossip. So? If we took your reasoning to its logical conclusion there would be no tabloids, editorials, very few "news" pieces, and a lot fewer books on controversial people/subjects.

If you noticed SA's moderation style, that's probably how he would like it.

 

[sailingaway]

And a guy could have been lying about his friend taking a dump in a stall at a nightclub when he was really doing drugs and could lead to someone standing in line and getting in a fight and eventually someone getting shot in the parking lot afterwards if it escalates.

The people at fault are still the people initiating violence and shooting at each other.

The issue is forseeability and intent here. Forseeability is more of a connection than causation. But it isn't libel or slander.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

This has nothing to do with libel and slander. Those are not new areas of jurisprudence. This is a new area of jurisprudence. When law enforcement agencies got judicial warrants before it acted, of course, it was immune from legal action, and so were lying 'sources' (who seldom got their crap past the judge anyway). Once you throw the Constitution out the window, however, you're liable to open up some interesting new fields of liability.

I blame the lawyers. They love interesting new fields of liability.

What do you call 1000 lawyers chained to an ocean floor? A good start.

 

[acptulsa]

Nope.

As does gossip. So? If we took your reasoning to its logical conclusion there would be no tabloids, editorials, very few "news" pieces, and a lot fewer books on controversial people/subjects.

Nope.

All the woman did is tell you how things are. So how could taking how things are 'to their logical conclusion' possibly result in things not being as they are?

Editorials are political speech, and exempt. Tabloids do get sued, but for the most part celebrities decide any publicity is good publicity and don't bother. Besides, libel and slander are notoriously hard to prove. Books can say anything whatsoever if it's demonstrably true. or if the copyright page says, 'any resemblance to any person living or dead is coincidence'. And most of the lying news stories don't result in damages to reputations that cost the victim money, because news sources treat professionals with respect even if they treat no one else with respect.

And that's why things are the way they are and yet are the way they are.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

The issue is forseeability and intent here. Forseeability is more of a connection than causation. But it isn't libel or slander.

He's lying to a thug prone to violence, and everyone knows the thug overreacts to bullshit cause he likes fighting, whatever. Does that make the result his fault now?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Actually, I believe they can be tainted if his wife is told lies about him, with false photoshop or something. I don't know if that precise kind would get more than punitive damages under damages laws, though.

This would be an extremely sad thing, and tragic. Someone doing this is would be acting despicably. I think we can all agree on that. But it is sad because of the effect it has on the future. The despicable act is changing future events, not past ones. The past events cannot be changed. The facts cannot be changed. So an ownership in "what he built" can't literally be what we're talking about when we talk about an ownership in reputation. What he built were all these past events and facts and daily acts that add up to something great. Those past events and facts and daily acts cannot be modified. They are beyond the purview of any evil doer to change them.

Again, do you agree with all this?

 

[sailingaway]

He's lying to a thug prone to violence, and everyone knows the thug overreacts to bullshit, whatever. Does that make the result his fault now?

a court would have to see if it was sufficiently forseeable. Your example sounds like it was an outside possiblity, maybe, not something that would precipitate the reason for the lie to begin with.

 

[sailingaway]

This would be an extremely sad thing, and tragic. Someone doing this is would be acting despicably. I think we can all agree on that. But it is sad because of the effect it has on the future. The despicable act is changing future events, not past ones. The past events cannot be changed. The facts cannot be changed. So an ownership in "what he built" can't literally be what we're talking about when we talk about an ownership in reputation. What he built were all these past events and facts and daily acts that add up to something great. Those past events and facts and daily acts cannot be modified. They are beyond the purview of any evil doer to change them.

Again, do you agree with all this?

but I don't think it is just the facts but the reputation you built through actually living that life that you are entitled to defend or get recompense for damage regarding, if the damaging statements were knowingly or recklessly false and forseeably damaging.

 

[acptulsa]

Those past events and facts and daily acts cannot be modified. They are beyond the purview of any evil doer to change them.

One bit of protection the laws provide consumers is the law against altering the odometer of an automobile. Because the fact that an automobile has three hundred thousand miles on it is inalterable, but that past can be misrepresented.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

One bit of protection the laws provide consumers is the law against altering the odometer of an automobile. Because the fact that an automobile has three hundred thousand miles on it is inalterable, but that past can be misrepresented.

On top of that, we now have things like carfax reports in case a disreputable dealer tries to tinker with the odometer. Free market FTW!

 

[jj-]

One bit of protection the laws provide consumers is the law against altering the odometer of an automobile. Because the fact that an automobile has three hundred thousand miles on it is inalterable, but that past can be misrepresented.

A similar situation would be someone paying me to tell him the truth about a professional and me knowingly lying about it. That's a different thing. Just talking about somebody shouldn't be penalized by the government.

 

[acptulsa]

A similar situation would be someone paying me to tell him the truth about a professional and me knowingly lying about it. That's a different thing. Just talking about somebody shouldn't be penalized by the government.

Okay.

It isn't.

Restitution is not considered a penalty, and the government doesn't bring suit on this the way it does in a criminal trial. It will hear the suit, but won't bring the suit.

Does this make you happy?

 

[jj-]

Restitution is not considered a penalty,

Technically, it's not even a penalty. In the case of defamation, libel, etc., it's theft.

 

[Reece]

someone in another thread mentioned that the reason Rothbard could argue against libel being actionable is that he confined his determinations to thoughts and didn't recognize EXPRESSION of lying and damaging thoughts as an action.

This isn't really true about Rothbard. He went into the issue of printing these thoughts and the damaging of reputation in Ethics of Liberty (maybe someone should sue this poster for libel! ). This was an interesting example he used at one point:

Suppose that Brown has produced his mousetrap, and then Robinson comes out with a better one. The "reputation" of Brown for excellence in mousetraps now declines sharply as consumers shift their attitudes and their purchases, and buy Robinson's mousetrap instead. Can we not then say, on the principle of the "reputation" theory, that Robinson has injured the reputation of Brown, and can we not then outlaw Robinson from competing with Brown? If not, why not? Or should it be illegal for Robinson to advertise, and to tell the world that his mousetrap is better?

And, a more general outlook on if someone is lying:

Smith has a property right to the ideas or opinions in his own head; he also has a property right to print anything he wants and disseminate it. He has a property right to say that Jones is a "thief" even if he knows it to be false, and to print and sell that statement. The counter-view, and the current basis for holding libel and slander (especially of false statements) to be illegal is that every man has a "property right" in his own reputation, that Smith's falsehoods damage that reputation, and that therefore Smith's libels are invasions of Jones's property right in his reputation and should be illegal. Yet, again, on closer analysis this is a fallacious view. For everyone, as we have stated, owns his own body; he has a property right in his own head and person. But since every man owns his own mind, he cannot therefore own the minds of anyone else. And yet Jones's "reputation" is neither a physical entity nor is it something contained within or on his own person. Jones's "reputation" is purely a function of the subjective attitudes and beliefs about him contained in the minds of other people. But since these are beliefs in the minds of others, Jones can in no way legitimately own or control them. Jones can have no property right in the beliefs and minds of other people.

The whole chapter can be found here: http://mises.org/daily/2572

 

[sailingaway]

This isn't really true about Rothbard. He went into the issue of printing these thoughts and the damaging of reputation in Ethics of Liberty (maybe someone should sue this poster for libel! ). This was an interesting example he used at one point:



And, a more general outlook on if someone is lying:



The whole chapter can be found here: http://mises.org/daily/2572

The first of those isn't false so it wouldn't apply to libel or slander, the mouse trap is actually more popular.

the second I disagree with because there are actions which forseeably cause harm to someone's reputation which I see as their property.

 

[Reece]

The first of those isn't false so it wouldn't apply to libel or slander, the mouse trap is actually more popular.

the second I disagree with because there are actions which forseeably cause harm to someone's reputation which I see as their property.

But in this example it would cause damage to someone else's reputation, even though it was true. If I own my reputation, and someone else damages it (whether through the truth or lies), why wouldn't this be aggression against me?

The lie is simply part of another person's thoughts that they write out (and so cannot be aggression). The damage to another person's trade due to a loss in reputation happens all the time in various fields, as in Rothbard's example (and so cannot be aggression). Both of these things it appears you think should be allowed individually. Why, when done together, does it suddenly become an act of aggression? Also, there is clearly a time difference between when the lie is made and when the damage is done. Is there a certain length of time when it no longer becomes aggression? (For example, suppose 50 years after I call you a liar someone sees the post and spreads it around thus damaging your life; would I suddenly have committed agression?)

 

[sailingaway]

But in this example it would cause damage to someone else's reputation, even though it was true. If I own my reputation, and someone else damages it (whether through the truth or lies), why wouldn't this be aggression against me?

The lie is simply part of another person's thoughts that they write out (and so cannot be aggression). The damage to another person's trade due to a loss in reputation happens all the time in various fields, as in Rothbard's example (and so cannot be aggression). Both of these things it appears you think should be allowed individually. Why, when done together, does it suddenly become an act of aggression? Also, there is clearly a time difference between when the lie is made and when the damage is done. Is there a certain length of time when it no longer becomes aggression? (For example, suppose 50 years after I call you a liar someone sees the post and spreads it around thus damaging your life; would I suddenly have committed agression?)

I think that is sophistry. A tree branch falling naturally can crush a car but if you do it with a hammer it is aggression.

 

[Reece]

I think that is sophistry. A tree branch falling naturally can crush a car but if you do it with a hammer it is aggression.

The person hammering the car is directly damaging the property; the tree branch falling is not directly caused by any human.

Both the lie and the truth have the same effect on the person's property. If a person does not own their reputation, they do not harm the person's property in the slightest. If the person does own their reputation, both the truth and the lie harm the person's property, and both should be punished similarily to the hammer dropper.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

In one case, some new property is created.

 

[sailingaway]

The person hammering the car is directly damaging the property; the tree branch falling is not directly caused by any human.

Both the lie and the truth have the same effect on the person's property. If a person does not own their reputation, they do not harm the person's property in the slightest. If the person does own their reputation, both the truth and the lie harm the person's property, and both should be punished similarily to the hammer dropper.

but a person has a right to speak the truth, I think it IS aggression to falsely say something about someone you know is false and will hurt them. How is it not aggression?